Excellent article. I'm curious about wind screens. Canister stoves have unusual demands from a wind screen perspective. BPL has written about this before (it may have been you, Roger, but I've forgotten). With a canister stove, you want to shield the burner from excess wind, allow enough air in (like any wind screen) but not let the canister get too hot. An upright stove sits up pretty high, which adds to the demands of a wind screen. You can make your own (and I imagine most people do) but if folks are thrilled about a better stove because it is a few grams less than an old one, than it makes sense for someone to sell a windscreen specifically designed and optimized for that stove. One of the reasons that the Caldera Cones are so popular is that the wind screen is integrated, and sold with the product.

The reason that they don't sell a windscreen with a canister stove is generally one of liability. A windscreen could cause your canister to overheat and explode. Most stove companies say "never" in their instructions. Of course people do it all the time in real life, but if something happens the stove company can say "you went against our advice" in court. It's reasonably safe if you're careful. Lot's of good windscreen ideas at Jerry's link.

The reason that they don't sell a windscreen with a canister stove is generally one of liability. A windscreen could cause your canister to overheat and explode...

Yes, but a windscreen like the third one in that thread is actually safer than no windscreen at all. It shields the canister from heat. That is similar to the one I saw on this site. I tried to make one, but failed. I would gladly pay for one, but I don't know anyone that sells one. So I use a basic windscreen, but I have to make sure it doesn't get too hot. In other words, I take more of a risk because I don't know anyone that sells a good windscreen. It is also a bit heavier than an optimized windscreen (since it is blocking wind from reaching areas that don't need blocking).

The one that sits on the radiation shield is very similar to the one I remember being described on this site. You are right, the bowl one is also very good. They both are quite similar, in that they form a barrier between the heat source and the canister. I would think they would make things safer.

You are right in general -- I think they don't want to mess around with windscreens unless they are completely foolproof (like the Jetboil). The Jetboil is really nice, but comes with a weight penalty. Something significantly lighter but just a bit less efficient (and not home made) would be really nice.

Can someone please make a titan canister that is refillable at the nearest propane supplier!? You could even have one designed for butane (lighter) and a sturdier (heavier) one for propane. That way we would not have to involve the big manufacturers.

Another thought brought up by this and another thread: Use a bimetall heatconducter on an upright stove! Voila! A safe, ultra light weight, KISS - solution to the problem! No need to use remote stoves even in winter!

Yeah, a ti reusable container would make things far better, as far as canister use goes. The cans are heavy and the waste is quite high given the contents, not quite doubling the weight of fuel. The gadgetry in the valves is also wasted labour, well at least for robotics. Far simpler to use a refillable propane bottle of around 240g capacity and eliminate the need for butane and isobutane cans. (But, this would also eliminate the need for getting rid of the butane - generally a byproduct from the petrolium refineries, often just burned off with excess methane, et al.)

All this waste is my primary objection to canister stoves. The cans need not be ti, and could be aluminum, as Roger pictured in the article. And, useing propane prevents the winter "freeze up" that is common with toppers. Titanium is actually a heavier material than aluminum, is far more expensive, and, is more difficult to work with (spinning/shaping.) It IS a bit stronger, though.

As far as stove systems go, there are three primary components to all stove systems. 1) some sort of heat source. 2) Some sort of heat target or pot. Some sort of energy conduction/radiation to get the heat from 1) to 2) with resonable efficiency. Optimizing any one component is sort of a worthless ocupation. All three need to be optimized together, ie, balanced together. This is, perhaps, why I find the 300t so interesing. It utilizes the pot as part of the stove. That is, the heat target is integrated into the heat source. It lacks a heat exchanger, IR absorber, wind screen, but there are potential solutions out there.

This is, perhaps, why I find the 300t so interesing. It utilizes the pot as part of the stove.

Yes, indeed. And not only that, they've got it working before you put the pot on. That's no small trick to get the stove to work both during start up (without the pot) and during cooking (with the pot). Most intruiging. And what genius to use the pot as the flame spreader. Very impressive. And maybe a bit scary for other stove companies. The Fire Maple engineers appear to really know what they're doing. They're thinking "out of the box" on things like the connection to the stove and using the pot to control flame dynamics. What will they come up next? Surely they can do better in the remote canister department. I'm still not very impressed by the Volcano stove (FMS-118). Too bulky and a bit crude. But Fire Maple is clearly very capable. A bit of a make-over to bring up the level of sophistication, make it a bit more packable, and lighten the stove, and they've got a winner.

I found a good source of aluminum for a windscreen or for a heat shield above a canister.

At the so-called dollar store, there were oval aluminum food platters for that price. I got one, then cut off the oval edges to produce one long rectangular piece of aluminum sheet metal. My piece is too large for just a windscreen, so the remainder can be made into a heat shield. The texture is embossed and the thickness seems similar to roof flashing metal.

The advantage is that I didn't have to buy a whole roll of roof flashing.

Great article Roger. I'm looking forward to what new in winter stoves (my supply of Powermax canisters will run out sooner than I'd like)

I too am looking forward to that article. I wonder though if they will be all Roger's specially constructed stoves. Don't get me wrong; I (very much) want to see them -- but I suspect that none of the stoves will be available for purchase. Still, Roger's stoves may presage what is to come.

I wonder what the effect, beneficial or not, upon the flame pattern and performance of the little FM 300 stove would be with a Heat Exchanger Pot like the one(s) Fire Maple and Optimus make? With a stove that light, and pots that heat/boil that fast, it could be a match made in heaven.

Interesting question. On some HE pots, the bottom is elevated which might preclude the use of the bottom of the pot as a de facto flame spreader. On other HE pots, the exchanger might cause the fuel/air flows to alter. Probably not a problem, but I can't say for sure. You could also have increased CO production if the exchanger caused flame quenching.

Hmm. Maybe I need to get one. lol. Just what I need. Yet another upright canister stove.

Its a pity there is no removable Piezo on these super light ones. If I remember correctly a normal piezo weighs in at 10 grams and if they put some effort in making it really light it might drop to 5 grams. That would easily be saved in gas usage since you never hesitate to turn off a stove with piezo where as one without you (me) are always a bit hesitant when changing pots or pouring the hot water. And the most important is that it is veeeery conveinant! Since it is removeable it would be up to everyone to choose.

If it is a hindrance in the race for having the lightest stove it could be supplied unattached and fire maple could still present the lowest weight in the marketing.

Finally since fire is such an essential part of safety and well being I always carry two sources of ignition/fire and the one on the stove counts as one so for me it would not be extra weight, just super convenient! Fire maple, please make the addition of removeable piezo in the next upgrade!

This is a question I have wondered about too. Is a flat bottomed pot better than a HE pot when it comes to the FM Hornet? I do not know enough about the way the Hornet flame spreads to determine which is the best option. Maybe there is no answer ...

Well, they've got the stove designed such that it will operate with no pot on at all (i.e. at startup), so it will run with a pot that be raised up due to a heat exchanger. The question is how well will it run, and I think that's just going to take some experimentation. Quite interesting to sell a stove which uses the pot as part of the system but not to include the pot. Jetboil has obviously been using the pot for some time -- but they include the pot when you buy the stove. Fire Maple's new Hornet must therefore be able to accomodate any reasonably sized pot, including (one would hope) a heat exchanger pot. That's a pretty good trick.

Roger states "the pot is shaping the flame like a splash plate." now a flat bottomed pot will provide a certain shape flame, but my guess is that a HE pot will provide different shape flame, is this better, or worse, or makes no difference? Whilst FM and others are selling HE pots are they intended for the Hornet or for other burners is my question?